Scott Adams gives you a hot take on Stzrok’s testimony so far.https://www.pscp.tv/w/bheOhjExODgwMjU5fDFaa0t6TlFyWU9aS3aieiEuV_vjq71gL8etNT29uumTifEvDd4YlzThn5YiHA== …
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
u ignore all context around statement. not credible in CONTEXT with all his other statements. That he meant "the voters" is about as credible as to think he meant space aliens would intervene to prevent Trump from winning. What is credible besides himself, is he meant "the FBI"
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tomntempe
That's how confirmation bias gets you. Lots of non-credible evidence, but so much of it!
4 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
The evidence that supplies context you call non-credible. Why? Yet that 1 piece of evidence W/O context somehow becomes credible. ALL of the evidence should be evaluated as to "credibility" & that which seems credible should then be considered in toto to provide credible context.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
As long as you realize what you are describing is either confirmation bias or truth, and no way to tell the difference, we agree.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.